Akron, Ohio
CEI~ Tl:U <'UGAL "FJRCJ::: T:Gsrs vi\ !' JufYi'.::Ji: TI .rLf; & t 'i. 1iD . .'.Jh CulL.)JJ\Y L , LLi;T
PH.Jul ...,~ LF' .:3SALIM~ GJcS TAEK
(L. H. Cabin fank fo r J5 -07 and .f'i/-1 Airplane s)
}ntrodu.::t i on ancl Summary
The main purpo se of the tests here repo~ted was to cetermine if the
tank failec1 un<"e r the specifie r1 l oaf concitions. In ar'dit j_on, it was de­sired
to measure the deflection or bulf'e in the f lat surfaces of the tank
a t, vari 1us stat i ·ms so as t o r' etermine a s clo s2ly as possil•le the maximum
~ ef lection occurring fo r the 0iff e rent spe cified l oad conditions. Further,
f r · certain of the l oad c 0nditi on s i t was ~esir ec to measure the <"eflections
a· , the co rne rs of t he t ank.
During t he enti re test serie s, two fail 1;.re s were noted. The Z'irst was
-f- ':e 1-Jr eaking- of a ho ld clown strap curing: t he 2g drag l oac'l test. These
.. '::.raps we re then red s:i r.:ned, and t he later tests with a new tank under hif"'h ­strap
1 ~ads tan t 1e 2g dr ag l oad imp o se~ did not r esult in fa ilure.
'i 0e secon,. failure wa s t he comp lete separat i on ') f t he top so.r face from the
ros s braces under t he first 4g l oad t e st. However, simi lar tests run sub •
f oquentl y on 1:1 different tank: di c1 not result in fai lure, a l th our h sli fht
~e para t ion as noted a l o~g ~oth e' ges of the corolite T section cross
· race next to the ac ce ss door (see Table I I I and notes 1 to 5).
The maximum def lect: ons recorced on t he t ank mode l fi nally se lected
"'or orochc ti on are given i)elow,
For the 6 ~· cown loar, t e maximum de flec t ion was o. 75 " ( 'l.'able II), occuring
at Point 719 ( i g: . 9J i n +;he large panel at the left hand sid e of the tank
next to t he bottom and at the aft end .
?or the 4g up load, the maximum deflection was 1. 25'1 (Ta·01e II I ), occurring
at Point ~ 2 5 , in the center panel of the top of the tank.
For the 2g drag load , t he maximum defle ction was 2. 16 '' ( Tal•le I I), occurring
at ?Ji nt tr3, in t he top pane l of the aft end.
For the 2. Sg side loac , the maximum deflection meas ured was 2.28 11 (Table II)
occ J.rr ing at Po int 7f29 , at the left hand · forward corner of t he t ank .
The whi rl ing a rm at the Daniel Gu)!p::enheim Airship Institute has been
r escri 11ec1 in oifferent techni cal j :•Jrna. ls l ,2. In brief, the whirlinr arm
consists of a l o n~ orizont al tubular arm built onto a central structural
f amework attached to a verti cal t ube of 16" fl iameter. This ver ti cal tu'•e
is at t 1a canter of rotation of the ent ire structure. The horizontal arm
ext~ no i nr from one sir' e of the central structure reaches throuf!'h a. narrow
slot in an in si r e wall into an annular test channel of approximately 16'x20'
cross secti~ n an~ 200 1 mean ci rcumfe rence. rhe outer wall of this test
channe l is the 0utsice wall of t he buildinf! . The inner she et metal wall
separates t he test channe l from the space imme0i~tely surr ouncinp:: the central
structure of the whir l i nf arm. doce ls to be tested a erodynamical ly are
carried on the end of the l ong horiz ontal arm. The central structural
framework anr1 the h or izontal e.rm are so Cles i p::necl t 'tat they can ~' e made to
balance freely a r o;nc a horizontal cross shaft at t he intersection of the
ir:ii.- --r;;11;_· ~-~h~· -~~;,,;-1.Thirling Ar m, ho1;rna l of t he Ae ronautical Sciences
Vol . 1, Pa e 195 . -
2T.H. Troll~r , The r anie l G ~g~enheim Airship Institute, iournal of Applied
. Physics, Vol. 9 , Page 24.
-2-
Daniel Guggenheim Airship Institute
Akron, Ohio
axis of t.he horizontal arm with the axi.s o:' rotation , and perT'enc'ic ~. lar
to bo 1·.h. ·when a moc1el is suspended on the end o+' the long horizont8.l a.rm,
the 'v110le assem 1 v is balance Cl hy co .mter weigrts fasteneo at the opposite
side of the central structure so t 1--1a t the centrifuiral forces which are
set .lP on opposite s i des of the center shaft wi1en t he arm rotates balance
0 Jt. ~
Powe r fo r driving she whirl i.npr a.rm is supplied hy a fi - cylinoe r
automotive t .rpe en(!ine t hr •ugh a V-belt drive t o a cro s s shaft. A large
')eve 1 -ear keyec1 to the l ower end of the vertical center shaft is driven
by a smal l pinion on this c r oss shaft.
? ig. 1 i. s a photograph showing t:18 complete whirling arm with a flat
,pl.s_ -;-e installec1 on the arm proper .
The method of m .h.mting the gas t anks fo"' test s on the whi: :; ing arm
is shown in the photographs comprisinp- Fi gs . 2 3 4 and 6. A framework for
support il-' g: t he tank was bui l t up on the centr :.. l structure on the enr
opposite the hori zontal arm. Co.unter weights to -ala.nee t :1i s framewor k
and the tank were fastened on the enrl of the long: hori zontal arm, where
the mo~ els · would ordinarily };e located . The ;)orj_tion of t he tank in -'.-.he
framework was cleterm ned by ·the nature of the .Load which i t was rlesired to
simulate, .r.hus l i f . 2 shows the tank set up ;_'or t ests simulatir_ a 6g
upward acceleration of the tank or a 6g. rovm l 'l af. on the airpla.r1e struc t'Ire,
F'or thj_s conf ition the 1)o ' ton of the tank was set at an an · 11:; of 80,4°
with the horizontal and the rotational speed was so chosen that the res-
•11 tant of +.he centrifup:al force an<'! the gravitational f orce was pe rpen­dicular
t o the bottom of the tank.
Fig •. 3 is a. force diagram for this test conditi£n and' shows the com­put&
tio:ns giving the angle of inclination of the tank a.nd the rotational
speed a t w~i ch the test was run. In Fig. 4 the tank is shown mounted side­wi
s~ with re spect to the directien of the centrifugal force and inclined
outward so t hat the combined, centrifugal and gravitational forces simulated
a 2~-. g sidewi se ~c qe leratio1:1· Fig;. 5 i•s a force diagram fol" this test con­dition.
Fig. 6 shows the tank mounted with the base insi de (toward the
center of rotation) so t hat the resultant load was directed against the
hold down straps, simulating a 4 g upward load . Fig. 7 is a force diagram
for this test condition. A fourth loading condition not shown by a phot•­graph
was also teste d , in which a 2g endwi se or drag load was simulated.
Fig. 8 is a force diagram for thi s test condition. In all these tests the
tank was mounted on a heavy wooden pl&tform , held down by tie bolts fa s­tened
to the hold down straps provided for mounting the tank in the airplane.
Since any shifting of the tank on this platf erm would introduce err.or s in
the deflections recorded, the bottom of the tank was located on t his base
by wood 2"x2" strips but the tank was not constrained in any other fashion.
Thi s method of mounting was thought to simula. t e to a reasonable degree the
actual installation of the tank in the airplane.
-3-
lJarne .t uug;genrre-iin: 1r1--r-srrrp In-s-c:ri:;i:r"t;e
Akr on, Ohio
Defle ctions of the diffe rent panels and the corners were measured by
wire s cratch pointers mounted perpendicular to t he fla t surfaces of t he
t ank . A wooden fr amework was ·b uilt up around tha t ank so as to provide
smooth surfaces opposite to the pointers and per pendicular t o the surface
of the tank at that point. Ordinary waxed paper tape was a t tached to
the se wooden boards and the ends of the pointers were bent and adjusted to
scratch on the sensitive paper tapes. The outward deflection of a panel of
the tank body or a sidewise or endwise deflection of a corner of the tank
itself was thus recorded by simple scratch methods. Fig. 9 is a. sketch of
one of the se scratch pointers installed showing approximate dimensions, to­gether
with a reproduction of a typical record. For the 6 g down load t est
oondition, t hese gauges were installed at 24 points over the four sides of
the tank located wherever possible so as to show deflections at the center
of the different panels formed by the internal bracing structure. For the
4 g up loads two additional pointers were installed on the top of the tank
and for the 2 g drag and 2.5 g sidewise loads four additional pointers were
i nstalled on the corners of the tank. Fig. 10 is a drawing showing the
location and identifi cation of the different scratch gauges with respect to
the tank structure.
The tank was filled with isopropyl alcoho l rather than with gasoline
for the t ests here reported, to decrease the fire~azard. The specific
gravity of t he test fluid was .786 by test~ whi ch is very close to that of
aromatic aviation gasoline (.781) and accordi n~ly, the tank was filled to
rated capacity by volume. Zero deflections were measured after t he empty
tank had been mounted in the proper position by simply moving the scratch
gauges back and for th sidewise on the waxed pa.per tape. The tank was then
filled with isopropyl alcohol and the arm counterbalanced. In running the
tests the arm was accelerated cautiously so as not to shake the.tank on its
platform. General l y from two to three minutes were required to bring the
arm up to the desir ed test speed. This speed was then held constant for 30
seconds and the arm then allowed to come to rest. Deflections were measured
perpendicular to the ori ginal zero lines on the scratch gauge records as
the sideward displacement of the point would have little signi ficance with
respect to actual deflec'tion or bulge of the panel under test . During the
course of the tests it was found .desirable t o mark on the scratch records
the position of the pointer on the waxed tape when the empty tank had been
i nstalled, again when the tank had been fil + ~ d with isopropyl alcohol,
a gain following the run before the tank was dr ained, and fina l ~y after the
tank had been drained. These points were labe l led "zeron, " f illed", "after
test run° and "empty'~, respectively. The pointers were bent sidewise
slightly when these marks were made so that the deflection under the actual
t est run could be followed with certainty ( See Fi g. 9).
Chronology
The complete series of tests c~n be divided into three groups. The
first group of tests was run for the purpose of comparing three different
types of construction under the 6 g down load. These runs were accomplished
on Dec. 30 and 31, 1942 and Jan. 1, 1943. Due to an error in measuring
t he radius of rotation t he tests as run actually only subjected the tanks
t o a 5.2 g down load and the test was accordingly repeated for t he Corolite
tank (7fl69) under the full 6 g down load on Jan. 12, 1943. These first
tests showed the Corolite t ank to be t he most satisfactor y , and the second
-4-
Daniel Gubgenheim Airship Institute
Akron, Ohio
group of tests was run on this one tank. These t e sts occupied the period
from Jan. 3 to Jan . 21. The 2 g drag test was run first on Jan. 5, 1943.
One hold down strap broke during this test. This failure was repaired,
and the 2~ g sidewise loading was run on Jan. 9. The repeat test under
the full 6 g down load was run on Jan. 12. The tests under the 4 g up
loading condition were deferred until a. new tank with stronger hold d~wn
straps could be built up. This tank was delivered Jan. 18 and was tested
on Jan. 21. The tank failed, the top surface pulling loose from the cross
braces and bulging up approximately 3".
Following this failure under the 4 g up load it was thought desirable
to ascertain approximately the magnitude of the up load that this type tank
co ~1 l d withstand. Accordingly, a third tank of the same Caroli te construe -
tj_on wa.s tested under a series of up loads increasing from 2 to 4 g by ~ g
steps. This series of tests was run from Jan. 27 to Feb. 5. This tank
¥nthstood the 4 g up load although no change had been made in the construc­t
ion of the cross braces or the top panels.
Test Results
Results of the first group of tests on the thr ee different types of
construction are given in Table I. In this table the points at which the
deflections were measured a.re grouped by the position of the points from
the base of the tank. Thus the points in the first group were all located
approximately 711 up from the base of the tank and were subject t o the
greatest fluid head (under this loading). The points in the second group
were located approximately 19~'' up from the base plane and were subject to
a lessened head while the third group of point s was located near the top of
the tank and was subject to ~nly a small head. Deflections are considered
positive if the tank wall bulges outward, and negative if the wall moves
toward the center of the tank.
During these tests the technique of recording deflections by the
scratch pointers used was necessarily being evolved by trial and error and
ac·cordingly no great accuracy is claimed. However , while the results as e.
whole are not entirely consistent, the greatest deflection measured (1.08"
at Point ~9, Tank rr93, Table I) was less than the maximum allowed as shown
on Vega Aircraft Drawing~lll273 and the inconsistencies were accordingly
considered of relatively small importance.
Results from the second group of tests are given in Table II, and .
it is immediately apparent that large deflections occur in the 2 g drag
and 2~ g sidewise loading (the magnitudes being 2.1611 and 2.28'' respectively).
A further analysis of Table II will be given in a later paragraph. The
failure of one hold down strap under the 2 g drag load has already been
noted. This test was run twice, because the wax paper tapes were placed
improperly and the deflections at a majority of the points were not recorded
satisfactorily during the first test. The fact that the top surface of the
tank pulled loose from the cross braces under the 4 g up load has also been
noted.
Results of the third group of tests are given in Table III, which
shows the deflection of the top ring of p.oints for the different upward
leadings. The maximum deflectien noted during this series of tests occurred
at the center panel of the t •p of the tank under the 4 g up l ead, and
amounted. to l.2i 0
.
-5-
Discussion
Daniel G1J. •ganh.:Ji.m Airship Institute
Akr on, Ohio
Referring again to t he 2 g drag and 2~ g sidewi se loading conditions
reported in Table II, it should be pointed out that the de f lections under
these test conditions mi ght depend on the tension in the hold down straps.
In these test installati ons, t he tank has a tendency to tip outward about
the wood block whi ch serves to locate the outside edge of t he tank on the
supporting platform . If the hold down straps are somewhat slack, the amount
of tipping and hence the deflection measured at certain points will be
gr eater. In the 2 ~ g sidewise loading points on opposite sides of the t ank
show de flections with opposite signs. This indicates that the tank as a
whole e it.her tips outward or deflects as in a shearing str ain , or both.
'l'hus points 13, 14 and 15 on the outer side of the tank have a + deflection
(move outward) while points 16, 17 and 18 on the inward side , but located
si-.nilarly, have a - deflection (or, move in the same dire ction as the
opposite points with respect to the fixed framework). It ls felt that the
reactions under these loading conditions are the most difficult to measure
accurately since they depend more critically on the similarity between the
installation .of the tank on the wood platform and the actual installati•n
in the airplane .
Results of the final test series wherein the tank was subjected to
successively increased loads in the same direction may be in error to a
certain extent due to the set that occurs in the tank wall. This is indi­cated
in Fi g. 9, where the scratch record r eproduced does not r eturn im­mediately
to the original zero after the test was run and the tank drained.
~Thether this residual deflection would vanish in the time taken to set the
tank up for the next test is not known. If t his residual deflection did
not vanish, the zero or initial reading for the subsequent test would be
the final reading for the previous one. If part of this set went out as
the position of the tank was being changed, the new zero would be closer
to the true zero, but still not exactly the same. Accordingly, the maximum
deflection recorded under the final 4 g up load is probably smaller than it
would have been had the 4 g up loading been applied first. All owing for
the slow recovery of the tank wall during the interval between test runs,
it does not seem likely that this error would be greater than 0.1" .
In the 2.5 g side load test, nine of t he recording pointers ran. off
the paper tapes d~ring the test run. These points are starred in Table II.
It is probable that one of these points would have registered a larger de­flection
than the 2. 2811 maximum deflection shown in the table, but in view
of the difficulties already mentioned in connection with the drag and side
load tests, it was not thought worth while to repeat the test.
. .
During the entire test series, two failures were noted. The first
was the breaking of a hold down strap during the 2 g drag loading tests.
Since only one strap broke, it is quite probable that the tie bolts had
not been tightened evenly, throwing an excessive load on one strap. Later
tests were run on a different tank in which stronger straps had been in­corporated.
The second failure noted was the complete separation of the
top surface from the cross braces under the 4 g up loading. Later tests
which repeated this load condition did not result in failure. It may also
be pointed out that this latter condition imposes a greater load on the
hold down straps than the 2 g drag load condition, and accordingly, the
stronger straps may be considered adequate for the loads specified.
Conclusions
Danie 1 G1J. :;g3·r:1:2 ~. rr. Air ship Institute
_ll_kr ·) r~ , Ch·i.o
-6-
The maximum deflections recorded on the ~ank model finally selected
for produotion are given below.
For the 6 g down load~ the maximum deflection was1o 'l5 11 (Table II),
occurring at Point =lf9 (F~ g. 9) in the large panel at the~~~1~t hand side of
the tank, a.t the aft end.
For the 4 g up load= t he maximum deflection was 1. 25u (Table Ill) .•
0c('.ur:ing at Point =rr25: ir. the center panel of the top :Jf ·Gh8 tank.
For the 2 g drag load, the maximum deflection was 2 .. :1.6 11 (Tab le II),
r:. c~1.r ring at Point =if3 , in the top panel of the aft end.
For the 2. 5 g side load, the -maximum deflection measured was 2. 28",
GJcurring at Point1f29, at the left hand forward corner of the tank.
M. E. Long
3 -15-43
Danie l Gu ;:::gcVihe-~rr1 P..ir s hip I nstitute
Akr on , Ohi o
TABLE I
TESTS OF THREE TYPES OF TANK CONSTRUCTION UN.L·ER 5. 2 g DOWN LOAD
Point
Nu .b e r
4
0
10
11
12
1
5
13
14
15
16
17
18
2
6
19
20
21
22
23
24
3
Deflection in Tank Wall, in Inches
Tank 11167 Tank 1f l69 Tank 1f93
( Tested 12-30 -42) (Tested 12-31-43 ) (Te s t8 C: 1 -1-43 ;
0.15
0.29
0.72
0.50
0.55
0.45
0.30
0.22
0.35
0.30
0.40
0,29
0,05
0.70
0.08
0.05
0.08
0.29
0.13
0.10
0. 31
0.30
0.25
0.25
0.53
0.45
0.40
0.14
0.60
0.38
0.27
0.42
,...J.
0.16
0. 08
0.74
0.13
0.16
0.06
0.44
v. Sti
(l. 28
(' . 34
~-· 08
0.57
0.64
0. 59 ;•
0.83
~~ 20
0.42
0.40
1.10
0.50
0.42
0.38
0.90
0.20
0.40
0.40
0.46
?oint 1f
-'-
r,
'i
u
~
5
6
7
8
3
10
11
12
13
14
16
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
2~
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
TABLE II
Danie :;. Gl- ,~· i:;en~fd m Airship Ins-ti tr:.te
A1c on . 0:1io
TESTS OF COROLITE TANK UNDER VARIOUS LOADING CONDITI ONS
6 g down load 4 g up load 2 g drag load 2. 5 g side load
(Test run (Test run (Tests run 1-5-43) ( Te Jt run
1-12-43) 1-21-43) Run#l Run 1f2 1-9-43)
0.5 0.65 0.78 0.73 ·) ,09
0.56 1.03 2.16 1. 95 c .14
0.34 0.77 2.16 2 .. i l
0.63 1.10 -0. 95 () . 22
0.35 1.3 -1.96 0.23
0.07 0.4 -1. 96 0.12
0.2 0.18 0.30 1.23
o.s 0.07 0.22 0.33 1.15
0.76 0.18 0.46 1.14
0.5 0.18 -- -0. 25
0.5 0.13 0.11 0.07 -0.4
0.32 0.07 0.06 o.o+ ..a. 55
0.66 0.28 0.13 0.35 1.50•
0.60 0.45 0.26 1.4
0.56 0.56 0.70 l. 7
0.63 0.46 -- 0.10 -1. 45 *
0.25 0.38 0.30 .tl.45*
0.12 0.10 0.11 -l.67
0.30 0.65 -- 0.32 l.40*
0.30 0.51 0.22 0.28 l.4$iii
0.51 0.62 -- 0.43 1.55*
0.10• 0.34: 0.13 +1. 65 *
0.12• 0.24 0.10 -l.40*
0.06• 0.06 0.22 -1.40•
3 .OO•• -- 1.2 •
1.31*• 0.40 0.40
..... -- 2.28 -- --
• Pointer ran oft paper tape after detleeting this amount. True
defleotion is greater than these values.
** Measured after test run. Tanlc top aeparated from oro1s braoes.
Danie l G 1r~1~h~i~ Ai ~ ship Institu~ c
P.kr o!"., Ohio
TABLE III
TESTS OF THIRD COROLITE TANK 'lfl96 UNDER DIFFERENT UPWARD LOADINGS
Defleetion under different l oads
Poinv ff: 2 g load 2.5 g load 3 g load 3.5 g load 4 g load
(Note 1) (Note 2) (Note 3) (Note 4) (Note 5)
(. ( ? . .i:'t end at top) . 45" .62" .7711 . '1( 1' . 97'!
( : ( f ;;d . end at top) .32" .19" .18" 5-i ?· .1011
., ' .L) i_L.E . side, twd, top .36" .35" .40" ~ ,_t ~·. : . 51 tt
row)
• 201
' 2·') ( :..H. center, top row) .~l" .33" • 3911 .43"
'..J, 1 ·" (L.H. aft , top row? • 39" . 40" . 46" .53" . 57"
22 (R.H. , fwd, top row) . 28'' .46" .4911 . 60" . 63"
23 (R.H., oenter, top row) • 21 '' • 29" • 38'1 .49" • 49"
24 (R.H. , a.ft, top row) • 09tt .12" . 20° .25" .26"
25 (center, top) .84'* .87" L OO" 1.11" 1. 25"
26 (small door, top) . 66" .7311
< ~ 6" . 98" 1.1511
Note 1
Note 2
Note 3
Note 4
"Note 5
Inspection after test run did not disclose any separation between
top surface and oross braces.
Slight separation between edge of Corolite T section brace and
ohemigum liner along edge next to access door.
No change from previous test.
Slight separation along both edges of Corolite T section adjacent
to door.
No change from previous test.
,
'· .
,,
,: .
..
·..J.
•:
' 0
'.) .
' I
8 ,
(;
~.
10,
Daniel Gt: ~p,-;.;.1li e L!l. hrship Insti"c;t1t e
~ kr ):!t, '.lhi•>
L1ST OF FIGURES
Photograph of whirling arm with flat plate :l.nstalled.
Photograph showing tank set up for 6 g down load.
F0rce diagram for 6 g d.)1.m :' oe.d .
I'~o tograph showing tank set up for 2.5 g side load.
r ' 8 ".'Ce diagram for 2, 6 g side load.
?'l:lc-tograph showing tank set up for 4 g up loa.J,
Force diagram for 4 g tp load.
Force diagram for 2 g drag load.
Typical scratch pointer installation and full r,cale photographs of
two typical records.
Ueveloped view of gas ~ tested showing app r ~ximate location of scratch
pointers and internal cross bracing.
------- ---------
J
J
Fig. 1. Photograph showing whirling arm w1 th flat p l ate in stalled.
Fig. 2. Photograph shewing tank set up for 6g down load.
----
...
I .
~------RA!!!us rR) =-_IZ./
1
I
GRAVITATIONAi. Acc. = 19
ResuL.. TANT Ace - 6 j
</> =" Al?C S £C 6'· 00
== 80·'1 °
C£Nr~1FV<i1Jl Acc. (a) = /']. TAN¢
=~ !;-. 919
.: 190· 3 P ys~c~
flee.= s .91
GRAv1rATIONAl Acc. ft7 )
SPEED ()F l?t>r~TttJI./ = 3? 9 RPM
l>ANaEL. GUGGBNH EIM
AlRShl IP tNST ITUTE
AKRON. OHIO
3- 10· 43 MEL.
I
I
Fig. 4. Photograph showing tank set up fo:r 2. 5g side load.
P(.ANE OF REVOLUTION
(HoRIZONTAl)
RA[)JI).) ( R) = 10· lf I
Ulf'AVITATlaNAl Acc. = I 1
/(£SUJ..Tl9HT Ace -= z,5 J
<f:.> ::::: ~Re sec 2·5 o
- 66·5 °
CEllTNIFU<,AL I-Jee (a) ~- I 'I· T/+N <¢>
= 230j
= 74-·tJ ~r/scc2
I I
....
tiRAVITATIOIYAl Acc. (1'})~
ANc;Ul~I? J/ELOCI/ y ::: cu RAP/sec.
a= w 2R 1 oR
UJ = (-ff;
R
=· 7/7i10 .:=. 2· /J b l?!iD-/scc. f /(}.ij
SPEED OF l?oTATIO!V = 2S:'i R.P.M.
DANIE:L. GUGGENHEIM
AIR.SHJP JNST11'VTE
AKRON• ·o HlO
3 - ra- "3 M E l.
-~-----~
j
1
Fig. 6 Photograph showing tank set up for 4g up load.
(HORIZONTAL)
r--- RA[; rv.5 fl()::- /0 ] ' -
CiRlll/fT-4TfON4L Aa. :=- Ir
;fE'SU.t. T4NT /}cc tit
'f> = ARC. sec tlf-oo
: 75'5°
CeNrlf'tFo(i~t.. flee . (a) = 11· r"tN ¢
- ~· 877
= I :t ti· 7 1=r /.Jee~
Acc. ( 19)
I
- ~
LET AN<:;UlAR VELOCITY = w RAD. /.J'Ec:
THEN a:. :::: w .4 R .;.'],It'
cu = r {-.
w = r· IZAl--7 - 3·'12 RAD/..1€C /0·7
. OAN'IEL GUGGENHEIM
AIR.SHIP INSTITUTE
AKRON, OHIO
3-13-43 MEL.
---
":) .
.J
~ ~ ~
~ I ~
......
\......
~I ~ ~ :
-~ _.l _______A_ "LANE oF Rcvot..unoH
(HoRtZ O/'f/Al)
/?ADIUS (R) = 11·0 1
- -------
GRAVITATI0/'111/.. Acc. = If
~ESVl TANT /1cc. - 2 j
f' : /'/RC SEC 2·00
-:: 6tJ 0
Ct?NrR1Fuc,11L lice. (a}== 19· TAN¢'
·- / 7.3 'j
= 55· 7 Pr;se-c. 2
/
I
/
/
CiR-"1 v1rA110NAL Acc. (tr)
/JN<.Tul Al? VEt.oCITY = w RAo./s£c.
a -=- w'R 1 01?
,r-;---T w = f-5-
lf' --f!I-IS:7 .-.., = z,z5 RAo./scC..>
11· 0
SPEED ~F R<!JrAr1ort - Zl-5 f(. RM.
Fit;. 8 FoRCE DtA<:TRA/'1 FOi( z 1 DRAQ LOAD
DANlEL GUGGENHEIM
AIRSHIP INS'Il'l'UTE
AKRON, OHIO
.3-l!r43 M.E.L..
TANK WALL l
,-~!
A};
...-'1
I
lb ~JElDIN '-~t ROD SCRATCI"' P01HTf1'
SOL D ~~ED ro !;,HEET META4.. eASE'
AN[l BENT AS S~OWM~ LEN6TH FROM
4 " -: .-:i 8!1. BASE OF POINTE~ lS
CE: ME. NT EI) To TANK WALL W 11 H
A1RPL~NE MODEL. CEMEHT. Wl'\V.~D
PJ:>..?f;R TAPE. 15 FASTENED TO (30~Rl>
1A.11f ~ THUM~ TACK~. 5oA.Rt> IS
.SUPPORTED FROM STEfL. FRAME
IJJK.1CK HOl..[),S TANK MOUlllTIN<i
P1..A1FORM.
Fie;,. 9 TYP1c AL SCRATCH Po1NTER INSTALLATION
AND FULL SCALE
TYPICAL
PH070GR APH5
REC.ORD5
DF TWO
-
DANIEL QUGGGtH-LEIM
AlRSHIP lNS'T17U'1'E.
A KHO!i. OHJO
TOP
"!' 27
I
I C\l · 0 - zsr I 26 u I
I
I
I
'L9
"
30 zi --..-
27 FWD. END 29
---------
----------
I
19 l 20 I ZI
__ :_l---~-~---~-- =i I I
o'J o'"' l o's • -1-L-- -~-~---- 7 ~ 7 I I i,r:i
I o 9
I -;::-
•
e>OTTOM
Non.:
30 AFT END
0
3
0
lt-iTERNA\.
BRACING
----------
~---------
I
0
1- .S~CT ION CROSS
5 fiO WI"~ TH US ---
28 R-H SI DE. 27
I I
2t : 23 l 220
I I
-4-- --L--
1 I
0
18 1
0
17 l o'" I I
I I
---~------j----- 1 I
0
12 I o" I 0
10
I l ~-
r--
_j_
F1c:i.IO .0EVELoPE.D V1Ew oF GAs TANK TESTED
5~ 0WtNG APPROXIMATE l.OC.ATION OF Sc.RATC.~
POINTERS ANO INTERNAL CROSS BRACING·
DANIEL GUGGENHEIM
AIRSHIP lNST!TUTE:
AKRON, OHIO
3-15 - 43 MEL

Click tabs to swap between content that is broken into logical sections.

This publication is protected by copyright law of the United States (Title 17, United States Code). Copyright to this publication lies with The University of Akron which makes it available for personal use for private study, scholarship, or research. Any other use of this publication including publications, exhibitions, or productions is prohibited without written permission of The University of Akron Archival Services. Please contact Archival Services at archives@uakron.edu for more information.